Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Monument of Brotherhood and Unity in Pristina

Monument of Brotherhood and Unity in Pristina

Human rights in Wikimedia projects

  • "Virgilio, your accusations are outrageous and false to the point of making no coherent sense whatsoever. No one is violating anyone's human rights on Wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Strategic Planning

Chess gameboard 800px

Talk:March 2011 Update

  • Feedback from new editors, Asinthior, 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "I've participated in a couple of discussion pages. On one of them an experienced user was downright hostile from the very start. As if I was being a naughty kid or I was disrupting the article on purpose. I hadn't done any changes, I was just suggesting it be done. As I see it I had a logic argument that would suffice anywhere in the world. What they told me (or what I interpreted I was being told) was that according to WP policies my argument meant nothing. I found that profoundly unfair and frustrating. Add to that the fact that this editor were completely uncivil and hostile from the start and it's miracle I'm still here. A second experience was slightly civil. Once again I posted a comment on a discussion page of an article suggesting a change. This time a very civil experienced editor showed me the ropes and give all kinds of information on WP policy to explain why this change was unfitting. I did my homework, followed all the links, read them, ask questions to other users and came back to argue my case just to be confronted with a veiled threat that I was rocking the boat for no good and it may have repercussions. As I've never been blocked before and I don't intend to be, I just gave up. [...] To my surprise I found the editor from the first story I recounted (easily a couple of years after I first crossed paths with him or her) in a wikiquette alert. All administrators participating in the discussion wanted nothing to be done, as this was an experienced user and a new user should know better than upsetting an experienced user."
  • New users creating new articles, Flatterworld, 21:06, 12 March 2011
    • "You may as well hang out a sign: We Hate Non-Nerds! and be done with it. Fix the obvious first instead of looking for endless ways to spend more money and time. This. Isn't. Rocket. Science. A few descriptions would solve the problem for 90% of the people. (I really can't believe no staff or Admin has ever noticed that. That tells you a lot, right there.)
  • case in point "article probation.", Decora, 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "I have never heard of this until today. "Article Probation"
      "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without any further warning."
      Imagine how a n00b feels reading that? Dont screw up or we will ban you. Not very inviting. we wont just remove your edit, we will banish you. no discussion, no appeal, no explanation.
      I have already suggested several times that the Edit Notice (the thing you see right above 'save my edit' button) should include a link to the EFF 'blogger legal guide',and advise people not to post defamatory or libelous material. my suggestion has been routinely ignored"
    • "what is 'you may be blocked without further warning'? the idea that violators of rules get to know what they did wrong is a principle as old as the Magna Carta. a good organization does not banish someone without giving a reason.
      This is a 'redundant regulation'. It is alreayd the policy, under Biography of Living Person, that any material not properly sourced is immediately removed. What is the extra step of banishing the editor? There are already procedures to ban people who have broken the rules repeatedly. You can also simply lock articles for a while. Why the redundancy?
      The upshot is that, if you want to know what drives people away, its that sort of thing. IMHO. Not a lack of a visual editor or whatever. It's the attitude of 'guilty of bad faith until proven innocent'."
  • New users creating new articles, Finell, 09:22, 12 March 2011
    • "A lot of experienced editors treat well meaning newbies badly, with nasty edit summaries on their reverts, nasty talk page posts ("Welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for your contribution, but what you wrote is utter nonsense ..."), and overly aggressive use of warning templates."
  • Another simple explanation of editing trends, First Light, 04:27, 12 March 2011
    • "[...] is the main purpose of Wikipedia [...] to create a welcoming and friendly online community, at which it seems to be failing?"
  • Glossary of Terms, Kerry Raymond, 01:42, 12 March 2011
    • "Every time I turn around someone seems to be complaining about something I've done (although I am not clear about exactly what it is)
      I saw a comment somewhere about whether people felt they are members of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia community. After a number of years, I never have. Partly because (until I stumbled on this page this morning) I never found anywhere I could talk to anyone, and talking is surely the basis for community."

A notable issue with Wikipedia

  • Artw, 1:47 PM, 11 March 2011. (96 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite
    • "Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Before 2005 in the English Wikipedia, nearly 40% of new editors would still be active a year after their first edit. After 2007, only about 12-15% of new editors were still active a year after their first edit. Post-2007, lots of people were still trying to become Wikipedia editors. What had changed, though, is that they were increasingly failing to integrate into the Wikipedia community, and failing increasingly quickly. The Wikimedia community had become too hard to penetrate."

Requests for assistance

Smoke flare 090626
  • are there enough resources to correct the course? Virgilio A. P. Machado, Fri Jun 5 17:16:24 UTC 2009
    • [...] this state of affairs in the Portuguese Wikipedia cannot be tolerated, condoned and supported by the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation, generously provided by volunteers and donors keen on improving the general knowledge and welfare of humankind and not the misguidance of a group that actively or with their silence have taken over the Portuguese Wikipedia. Swift and drastic measures need to be taken to stop this.
      I believe that as a consequence of the self management of the [Portuguese Wikipedia], it is now being operated and run on a daily basis by a group of people with severe mental, emotional, and behavioral problems, completely out of control and without any kind of supervision and/or regulation. This has been corroborated by several pt-wikipedians. In an attempt to gather a sample of their statements, a non-exhaustive collection was made ([1]). It was voted for deletion ([2]) with arguments from both sides that are outright embarrassing. Maintaining the page won by four votes. [See also [3]]
      This voting is just one of many examples of rampant disrespect for the five pillars, occurring, unchallenged, on a regular basis on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Mobbing is practiced matter of factly, and promoted openly on discussion pages. Just for your information, please be aware that I was already harassed on the Portuguese Wikipedia ([4]) for bringing up this subject on "foundation-l." I was under the threat of banishment ([5]) from the pages where this harassment takes place, by the same administrator bureaucrat and member of the of arbitration committee mentioned [...]. When I questioned the voting for violating that Wikipedia is free content, I ended up blocked for six days ([6]).
      I don't think that analysis of much of the goings on in the pt:wiki by competent professionals would give it a clean bill of mental health. It's a crazy world, I know, but the project is of an encyclopedia, not a crazypedia (forgive my hyperbole.) "Pero si muove." Certainly, it does, but at what cost, it is my turn to ask. Is it really as impossible to bring a project like this under control, once it gets spinning on its own axis, as it is to stop the Earth from moving? Or are there enough resources to correct the course?
  • I believe I need some serious help, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Fri Nov 12 23:16:56 UTC 2010
  • deafening silence, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Mon Dec 6 23:41:28 UTC 2010
    • What a timely post.[7] What an opportunity to test the Santa Claus hierarchical structure.[8]
      I do feel your pain, but given my extensive experience of bring up all sorts of shenanigans to the attention of this list and meeting the most deafening silence, I'm taking bets on what kind of response you going to get here or anywhere else, including where it would matter most: Commons. The house, as always, has an advantage: it has been already more then three hours since you posted your message and the response has been an overwhelming zero.
      If you do succeed in bringing any change to Commons through this request of yours, I will follow with a similar one of my own concerning the Brazilian Wikipedia, whose de facto "president" has recently delivered a speech that includes some well oiled quotes like "I'm not a crook."[9]
      Actually the place is falling apart from rot: no bureaucrats, no checkusers, and an arbcom which is the epitome of fairness and due procedure, and now under the spell of a steward that lay in waiting for his time to take over. All of you that are believers join me in prayer for the salvation of that project, although I think that is not going to be enough. Things are going to get a lot worse, before they have a chance to get better, if ever.
      Best of luck to you too, Carolina.[10]
  • Request to undelete, Virgilio A. P. Machado
  • Request for assistance, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Wed Jan 5 19:15:37 UTC 2011
  • Updated request for assistance, Virgilio A. P. Machado, 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Please let me know:
a) why my request for unblock was never answered,
b) where on page (2) are the occurrences of "harassment,"
c) if after Dec. 23, "he's just returned to do the same thing that lead him to be blocked in the first instance.",
d) where are the occurrences of "continued hostile behavior,"
e) towards what or whom is that "continued hostile behavior,"
f) why my "interesting history" of "cross-wiki" pioneering achievements is never mentioned, a clear violation of a NPOV in decision making.
  • Please give us some links...
    • Fred Bauder
      Sat, 9 Apr 2011 18:47:56
      Was there an arbitration case? Or other dispute resolution events? If so, could you share your reactions to the fairness and comprehensiveness of what happened? Please give us some links...
    • Virgilio A. P. Machado
      Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:37:44
      What is the purpose of all those questions? I've always provided that information to this list and if anything ever come out of it, besides being scolded by the list masters for making off-list posts, was to gain a new following of admirers.
      Virgilio A. P. Machado
    • Fred Bauder
      Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:57:49
      The reason to ask is because if there is a problem we might be able to resolve it. At this point I don't know what your problem was or is. You seem to be nursing a grievance; trying to milk it rather than solving it.
      I'm sorry if I've not paid perfect attention, but I don't think I've got the tone wrong.
    • Virgilio A. P. Machado
      Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:36:10
      Of course there are problems, some of them in plain English. Is anybody on this list able to do anything about them? I'm sure there is. That is why I have posted here so many times asking for help. Have I received any help? None whatsoever.
      It's kind of hard to believe that any assiduous member of this list is totally unaware of my "Request for assistance" posted Jan. 5. That's already more than three months ago. Have I seen any results? You bet. You can see by yourself looking at my Meta talk page from all the way down to the declining of my request to unblock "with an expiry time of infinite", on Jan. 16.
      Am I nursing a grievance? You bet I am. For three months and still counting. Will I ever forgive? There's nothing to forgive. Will I ever forget? Never. I can assure you that is not in my nature. Once someone gets on my ignore mode it stays there until chickens grow teeth.
      Am I trying to milk it? There's nothing to milk. I'm not sure of the exact meaning in which that expression was used, but anyway I look at it, it does not seem very relevant. Nevertheless you can bet that I believe that one day the chickens will come home to roost.
      Except for overlooking a bunch of my previous requests for help, including the one above, it seems you were paying perfect attention and you got my tone wright: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore! I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about Meta, the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'
      Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)

"You're an idiot"

Adrien Barrère25

Forget altruism

Be stupid @ Amsterdam
  • "antisocial production", Eddie Tejeda, Sat Jun 27 21:57:44 UTC 2009
    • Forget altruism. Misanthropy and egotism are the fuel of online social production. That's the conclusion suggested by a new study of the character traits of the contributors to Wikipedia. A team of Israeli research psychologists gave personality tests to 69 Wikipedians and 70 non-Wikipedians. They discovered that, as New Scientist puts it,[12] Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new ideas."[13]
  • Always knew this, Fred Bauder, Sat Jun 27 22:07:15 UTC 2009
    • Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have low interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is policy, Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new ideas, which we call original research.
  • it is "policy" to be "disagreeable"? Marc Riddell, Sat Jun 27 22:27:23 UTC 2009
    • C'mon, Fred; it is "policy" to be "disagreeable"?
  • pretty accurate, David Moran, Sat Jun 27 22:35:25 UTC 2009
    • While not exactly science, having gone to more than one Wikipedia picnic to break bread with my fellow contributors ... the conclusions seem pretty accurate to me.
  • close to that conclusion Milos Rancic, Sat Jun 27 23:55:38 UTC 2009
    • Generally, my experiences are close to that conclusion.
  • distinguish between cancers and cures, Ray Saintonge, Mon Jun 29 06:40:33 UTC 2009
    • Biting newbies, aggressive insistence on established procedures and guidelines across a wide range of article types, or general impatience are all part of the more disagreeable qualities to be found. As a community grows in size and self-importance it becomes easier to ignore new ideas by reacting to them with silence. By quietly disposing of new ideas the community's immune system is at its bacteriophagic best; it is just not smart enough to distinguish between cancers and cures.
  • outrageous, Mark Williamson, Tue Jun 30 09:11:05 UTC 2009
    • Behavior on many projects IS outrageous; when someone complains the response is almost universally that the foundation doesn't get involved in local project business.

That doesn't really fly here

thumb|300px|right|Empathic civilisation

  • empathy, camaraderie, and friendship, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Tue Jun 30 01:47:31 UTC 2009
    • I'm saddened by the undeniable evidence, that even on this list it is easier to find displeasure than empathy, camaraderie, not to mention friendship. As I was told: That doesn't really fly here.
  • It is truly a sad state of affairs, Marc Riddell, Tue Jun 30 00:35:50 UTC 2009
    • You are not alone in your observations, Virgilio; more agree with you than will admit. It is truly a sad state of affairs.
  • exchanges aren't always very friendly, Nathan, Tue Jun 30 02:01:21 UTC 2009
    • You're right, though, that exchanges on this list aren't always very friendly.
  • those who don't like being bullied don't post, Ray Saintonge, Tue Jun 30 04:53:37 UTC 2009
    • One of the problems is precisely that those who don't like being bullied don't post, because that shuts out an entire range of opinions from those who are more thoughtful than loud. There's a problem with just asking questions too. If what you want is a dose of paternalistic pablum, that's exactly what you'll get.
  • something that happens on this list a lot, Sarah, Fri Apr 15 22:36:42 UTC 2011
    • here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?

Community behavior

Francesco Hayez 017

The destruction of the Temple
(Francesco Hayez, 1867)

  • increasingly cynical unforgiving and hopeless culture, Stephanie Daugherty, Mon Mar 28 01:10:03 UTC 2011
    • [...] there are principles such as forgive and forget that are just as crucial to community building. instead we punish reputation endlessly -, once you make a mistake it follows you forever or at least until you make a clean start. most people don't want to have to start over every time they manage to offend someone, so I think we are becoming victims of an increasingly cynical unforgiving and hopeless culture. The editors that are left are either the ones with really thick skin, the ones that haven't become jaded yet by community interaction, or the ones that create such a hostile enviroment. [...] the mission itself is jeopardized by communities that are too hostile for new members to be comfortable in.
  • problems in the way of getting to content, George Herbert, Tue Mar 29 18:12:16 UTC 2011
    • The community behavior problems in the way of getting to content annoy me a lot of days.
  • Which community behavior problems?, MZMcBride, Tue Mar 29 19:31:12 UTC 2011
    • Which community behavior problems stop you from contributing content?
  • This is not a new problem. Fred Bauder, Tue Mar 29 19:06:47 UTC 2011
    • Point of view editors who attempt to control the content of articles to advance their cause. Anything they put into the article is gospel. Anything you put in has a poor source or is original research. This is not a new problem. Establishing a minor point is the work of days.
  • I experienced the same, Yann Forget, Tue Mar 29 19:26:32 UTC 2011
    • I experienced the same as Fred, and I stopped working on French Wikipedia because of that.
  • The problem is simple, The Mono, Thu Mar 31 03:45:01 UTC 2011
  • It's more complex, George Herbert, Tue Mar 31 03:53:29 UTC 2011
    • Some respondents were banned or encouraged to go do something else. Some were working on good stuff, and were driven away in frustration by things that should not have happened. The former we want gone. They may be editing content, but they're doing harm to the rest of the community as well. The latter, we do not want gone, and to the extent the situation is driving them away (and driving away new editors who might start editing actively) we're in trouble.
  • hurly-burly of Wikipedia, Philip Nash, Tue Apr 5 00:40:58 UTC 2011
    • In the hurly-burly of Wikipedia especially, trenchant, even strong, language seems to be accepted from some but not from others. Some give and take should be allowed but when a top 100 contributor is desysopped for little else by WP's ArbCom, who knows where the limits may be?
  • established editors not following the policies and guidelines, Sarah, Sun Apr 10 20:43:16 UTC 2011
    • A lot of the problems stem from established editors not following the policies and guidelines -- and not only about sourcing, but everything. We get endless inquiries from new editors to the effect that "guideline X says I can do this, but I'm being told I can't."
  • they're not gentle, Sarah, Fri Apr 15 23:02:01 UTC 2011
    • It was David [Gerard]'s comment: "Should you have been consulted?"
      I am tired of seeing these comments on this list. It's the first time one has been directed at me, but I've watched other people be treated the same way. It makes no sense. Questioning, disagreement, and transparency are important; it's what Wikimedia is all about, in fact. I know people sometimes go too far, and occasionally gentle rebukes may be needed, but they happen way too often on this list, with very little provocation -- and they're not gentle.
      We can't say we want new editors, old editors to stay, and a good atmosphere onwiki, then have these kinds of exchanges.
  • what really motivates us, Krinkle, Sun Apr 17 18:33:01 UTC 2011
  • absence if not total lack of empathy, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Sun Apr 17 19:36:32 UTC 2011
    • Yes, indeed. I didn't send that one because it did not address the question at hand, but it's a great analysis that addresses an important issue relevant to the contributors to all Wikimedia projects. It even fully explains what motivates me. I hope everybody was able to identify themselves with what is presented in the video as well as I did. The video also explains why things are not going the way they were suppose to go. The reason ties in perfectly with my point: an absence if not total lack of empathy. Let's wait to see if there are any further comments. So far we have a one to one tie, not enough to draw any conclusions. I'm very encouraged by the fact that no flame war has erupted so far. These videos (and drawings) are food for thought, not taunts for knee jerk reactions.
There were no further comments

Giotto - Scrovegni - -50- - Injustice

Giotto di Bondone (1267-1337), Capela Scrovegni (Capela Arena), os Sete Vícios: «Injustiça» (Iniustitia, ca. 1305-1306)

  • cases of injustice. Fred Bauder, Sun May 22 16:37:21 UTC 2011
    • That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community.
  • doing their best to help, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Thu May 26 23:59:09 UTC 2011
    • I'm absolutely sure they were doing their best to help, weren't you? Of course you were. It's not nice to make personal attacks, right? Right.
  • What, exactly?, Mark Williamson, Fri May 27 17:42:49 UTC 2011
    • I'm not sure any of us had the stated intention of helping you. What, exactly, were we expected to be helping you with?
  • whistling past the graveyard. Fred Bauder, Fri May 27 18:35:36 UTC 2011
    • I think the message is a head's up that there might be problems on some Wikimedia projects, and that the pollyannish attitude that everything will work out if one is patient and persistent enough which I sometimes display may be pretty much whistling past the graveyard.
  • One down, three to go, Virgilio A. P. Machado, Sat May 28 01:57:01 UTC 2011
    • No, of course there was no intention, stated or otherwise, to help. That was exactly my point, in case you missed it. If you have to ask about how you are expected to help, you can't afford to do it. You are out of your depth and out of your league (absolutely no offense intended).
    • "Whistling past the graveyard" is a very appropriate metaphor considering that the problems, no matter how large or small, of those that are there, are definitely over. Time eventually solves all our problems. If you are "patient and persistent enough" they will go away.
    • Maintaining best practices is an entirely different matter. I would tend to agree that THERE ARE problems, but it's beyond me to list them all, or the projects where they persist. Given that human nature is what it is, I strongly believe that there is room for continuos improvement, both at the personal level (and I mean no offense to anyone, by implying that any of the members of this list, except myself, are less than perfect) and in each and everyone of the Wikimedia Foundation projects (and I mean no offense to any project and/or members of any project, by implying that any of them, except myself, is less than perfect).
    • Now comes the tricky part. Let's review what I wrote about Meta, for example:
      "The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption provoked and caused by those same people mentioned above. The user is the same. Trouble only started after the interference of the same people from the Portuguese Wikipedia on Meta. Their votes can be seen popping up on the RfA. There has never been a single block on any other Wikimedia project where these editors do not have any influence. The obvious conclusion is that the hostile behavior stays with that people, not this user."
    • Thousands of people are involved in those processes. It has been and it continues to be discussed extensively elsewhere. I might be one of the few or the only one who has patiently and persistently brought it up here, sometimes at the risk of disrupting this list. I do apologize for that. I wish I didn't have any reasons to do it, but nothing would give me greater satisfaction than realizing that I made a speckle of a difference in making things better for others, so they would not have to go through the same that I did, and at least one Wikimedia project would be better off for that.
There were no further comments

Wikimedia revisionism




Brazilian Wikipedia

Virgilio A. P. Machado <>[14]
Sat, 28 May 2011 01:57:01


I recall how some people have been so baffled that they wonder about what are my intentions. I don't think I ever answered. We all know that "hell is full of good intentions." What I have done is nothing, but whatever I have done for the Wikimedia Foundation projects nobody can take away from me. Now, would you believe me if I told you that there are some people who are spending their time and effort trying to do just that? Sad isn't it? But yes, it is true, you better believe me.


Virgilio A. P. Machado
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia

  • Sep 16, 2010, a message was received from Castelobranco stating that, if there was interest, the user and user talk pages could be deleted, and the user name removed from the list of the Brazilian Wikipedia contributors.
    • Since Sep 15, 2010, when an uncivil message was posted on user Vapmachado talk page,[15] the lists of contributors have been "revised" and the name has been removed.[16] and [17]
    • It can still be seen on this page that, when compared with the almost six thousand active users, the rank would be around 500[18], although the last edit was made April 3, 2010 and not Oct 3, 2010, as erroneous stated by the unfortunate editor.[19]


Wikimedia Outreach

Strategic Planning

In Portuguese

Human rights

Rue de la Fraternité, Paris 19

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [...]. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."[20]


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

[...] the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,


Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance [...]

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any [...] group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.